God-potential

[John Cuthber]

This assertion "At the end of the day, you do think with your tongue, and there is no escaping that fact with wit." is trivially falsified by consideration of those who lose their tongue to accident , caner or whatever, but continue to think as before.

 

I't not just that S1eep needs to learn to back up assertions, it's that he needs to learn not to make silly claims in the first place.

[ydoaPs]

I'd like to see proof of something impossible being imagined/drawn, and that drawing the poster above linked is not impossible, it was created by mixing other sensory data.

That's odd, since you have posted in a thread whose OP contains such an example.

[s1eep]

I would like an answer to this:

 

A Human has user-potential. Are Humans meant to abuse the mind, body and spirit for all of their glory? For example, we are able to imagine ideas, images or concepts that we have sensed or that correlates with sensed data – that is its potential. Is it good to exercise our imaginations only because it is a part of us?

A consciousness is produced with user-potential; it can accomplish a number of different physical, mental and spiritual feats. Does that mean that humans are born intelligent over their minds, bodies and spirits?

Is any other intelligence compulsory for a consciousness, such as general intelligence, mathematical intelligence or scientific intelligence?

 

Edited November 1, 2013 by s1eep

[John Cuthber]

"A Human has user-potential. Are Humans meant to abuse the mind, body and spirit for all of their glory? "

Meant by whom?

 

I'd like you to address the fact that your ideas have been shot full of holes but you have not responded to that.

So, for example, when you go to the dentist and get a Novocain injection, do you stop thinking?

Or was you assertion that "At the end of the day, you do think with your tongue, and there is no escaping that fact with wit." total nonsense?

[Phi for All]

It's very difficult to convey these ideas as I have no holy book to rely on or any type of support for that matter. It's all spurring from my own observation of nature.

 

This seems to be a very large part of why your ideas are being savaged. You've come up with a lot of things that only make sense to you. You're trying to share them for perhaps the first time and it's clear your observations are wrong. In science, when this many people tell you you're not making sense, it's time to listen and adapt your stance accordingly.

 

The funniest part about it is that everyone doesn't know they think with their tongue, it's something that has been overlooked for decades, that's why it leads me to believe that there is something wrong about reality, or that science is wrong and God might exist.

 

I wonder why it didn't lead you to believe that reality is correct and you're wrong. That should be the default stance, tongue-thinker.

 

Btw, science hasn't made any conclusions about whether God might exist, so it has nothing to be wrong about.

 

Can you not discover it for yourself? Or are you talking about everyone not knowing?

 

Wow, that's really evasive. You have no evidence so you ask others to go look for it to prove your assertions. AND you wonder why people aren't taking you seriously.

[iNow]

I suspect the "think with your tongue" silliness is basically an ill-used metaphor trying to convey something pertaining to the deeper impact of olfaction and endocrine function on our mentation.

[swansont]

 

This seems to be a very large part of why your ideas are being savaged. You've come up with a lot of things that only make sense to you. You're trying to share them for perhaps the first time and it's clear your observations are wrong.

 

Or, perhaps, a false extrapolation: true for you but not true in general.

[s1eep]

I'm merely stating the fact that the words running through my mind, that I CANNOT prevent, it seems to be set in stone, is done with the tongue, as I can tell by focusing on how I'm thinking. And because the words in our heads are coming from the tongue, any word-based thought is because of the tongue; even though we choose, we choose what our tongue does.

 

1. Say a word in your head.

2. Now think something in your head.

3. It is the same

 

You probably thought, "No, what an idiot".

Now, is THAT intelligent-- your expressed judgement, because it's just skill from your tongue, it can be passed off with mere skill.

 

I will say "No, I'm not an idiot", and be not an idiot. I suppose you can judge me and I need to be holding some sort of reputation within the forum.

 

It's basically saying the word is irrelevant to intelligence.

Edited November 1, 2013 by s1eep

[Arete]

Err, your tongue doesn't come up with words, it merely assists your respiratory tract in generating sounds that others can interpret as words. The Broca's region of your brain is what actually facilitates speech/language.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Arete

[s1eep]

Err, your tongue doesn't come up with words, it merely assists your respiratory tract in generating sounds that others can interpret as words. The Broca's region of your brain is what actually facilitates speech/language.

Ok, I understand what you're saying, and you confirmed what I said apart from I didn't use the correct terminology and say "word-thinking".

 

EDIT: Uhhh, why are we using our tongues and respiratory tract to make sounds in the form of words for the brain to interpret, and create the illusion of thinking? And why is this intelligent? How does it benefit us?

Edited November 1, 2013 by s1eep

[Arete]

Because words are conduits of information. In order to convey a thought - or any other information to another human being, you need to communicate it to them. Words simply convey the necessary information for something you thought of to be understood by another human.

[s1eep]

Because words are conduits of information. In order to convey a thought - or any other information to another human being, you need to communicate it to them. Words simply convey the necessary information for something you thought of to be understood by another human.

And this is compulsory? And greater than the latter how? I could communicate with my body.

My assumption is that you'll say it's greater than the latter and compulsory; my questions then are, how do you know? And what makes it compulsory?

Edited November 2, 2013 by s1eep

[Arete]

And this is compulsory?

No one said that it was.

 

 

 

And greater than the latter how?

 

No one apart from you implied that it was. In fact the idea that a method of commincation is greater or lesser than the information it is being used to communicate is non sequitur. It's like saying apples are better than pianos. If you want something to eat, and you're not a termite, the apple is likely to be superior. If you want to play music, you're likely better off with the piano. Merely stating that one is "greater" than the other with no context doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

I could communicate with my body.

 

Sure. I have to give a lecture on coalescent theory - a rather abstract theoretical concept on Monday. I could give it by interpretive dance, but it would probably be more informative (albiet less entertaining) if I use words and a visual presentation.

 

 

 

My assumption is that you'll say it's greater than the latter and compulsory

 

And your assumption is not only incorrect, but not actually sensible.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Arete

[s1eep]

No one said that it was.

 

 

 

 

No one apart from you implied that it was. In fact the idea that a method of commincation is greater or lesser than the information it is being used to communicate is non sequitur. It's like saying apples are better than pianos. If you want something to eat, and you're not a termite, the apple is likely to be superior. If you want to play music, you're likely better off with the piano. Merely stating that one is "greater" than the other with no context doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

 

Sure. I have to give a lecture on coalescent theory - a rather abstract theoretical concept on Monday. I could give it by interpretive dance, but it would probably be more informative (albiet less entertaining) if I use words and a visual presentation.

 

 

 

 

And your assumption is not only incorrect, but not actually sensible.

Give me a straight answer to the question: is word-communication greater than wordless communication?

[Arete]

Well that's the first time you asked it, so I'm not sure how I was supposed to give you a "straight" answer prior to now.

 

And the answer is neither is "better" than the other. They are simply conduits of information. If one conveys information better in a given situation, it is the best.

 

With no context, the question is meaningless.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Arete

[s1eep]

Well that's the first time you asked it, so I'm not sure how I was supposed to give you a "straight" answer prior to now.

 

And the answer is neither is "better" than the other. They are simply conduits of information. If one conveys information better in a given situation, it is the best.

 

With no context, the question is meaningless.

I disagree and don't think that is a sensible answer.

 

And on that note,

Goodbye.

[John Cuthber]

I disagree and don't think that is a sensible answer.

 

 

Well, you are wrong.

[Arete]

I disagree and don't think that is a sensible answer.

 

You disagree that the purpose of communication is to convey information, or that the type of communication that is most suitable is context dependent?

 

 

And on that note,

Goodbye.

 

Guess we'll never know.

[Phi for All]

I disagree and don't think that is a sensible answer.

 

And on that note,

Goodbye.

 

!

Moderator Note

OK, thread closed.